Dutch versus English past tense

[awa5114]

I'm a bit confused about two forms of the past tense in Dutch. For example for the verb wonen (to live)

Ik woonde in Amsterdam
ik heb in Amsterdam gewoond


What is the difference between the two? My gut feeling is that the first is "I lived in Amsterdam" while the second is "I have lived in Amsterdam". However both of the above statements in Dutch are translated by Google as "I lived in Amsterdam". Is Google wrong in this case? Or are the past tenses in Dutch really less restrictive than in English? i.e the first two statements are identical and equivalent for every context?

[awood63]

They are not exactly the same but the difference in usage is hard to explain. Try this
http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Verbs.Re11

[ngonyama]

I'm a bit confused about two forms of the past tense in Dutch. For example for the verb wonen (to live)

Ik woonde in Amsterdam I was living in Amsterdam [when that happened]
ik heb in Amsterdam gewoond I used to live in A'dam, but now I live somewhere else


What is the difference between the two? My gut feeling is that the first is "I lived in Amsterdam" while the second is "I have lived in Amsterdam". However both of the above statements in Dutch are translated by Google as "I lived in Amsterdam". Is Google wrong in this case? Or are the past tenses in Dutch really less restrictive than in English? i.e the first two statements are identical and equivalent for every context?

It is better to think of the first being imperfect and the second perfect, as in: over and done with. In fact the phrase with Ik heb in Amserdam geleefd is not a past at all. It is a statement of fact about the present. Something that made you the person you are today.

[Ttjordy]

'Ik woonde in Amsterdam.'
and
'Ik heb in Amsterdam gewoond.'
Both mean the same thing, you can use them interchangeably. They both signify a period in which you lived in Amsterdam in the past , but not anymore.

[awa5114]

Thanks for your help guys. The difference is a bit clearer now...